The huge and sweeping victory for democracy in Lebanon that
General Michel Aoun and his lists scored in Mount-Lebanon elections against the
gigantic bulldozer of the Bristol-Amal-Hezbollah Alliance (BAHA; after Abu BAHA’,
their campaign slogan, and not BAHIA) was the first realization of what the
people demanded in a post-Syrian era: a representative democracy, a change of
the political establishment and the hope for a secular government with equality
for all.

For more than 33 years, since 1972, Lebanon has not held free
elections; political leaders in Lebanon were sprung on the scene by the might of
their sectarian militias or recycled time and again by virtue of their wealth,
feudal roots or their willingness to accommodate the interests of foreign powers
(Syrian, Israeli, American, Iranian, etc.), but almost never by the will of an
electorate.

The Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and the demand by the
“French-American coalition on Lebanon” that “free elections” be held at this
time, required that Lebanon’s political establishment acquires for the first
time its representative credibility and legitimacy through free
elections.

Many in the BAHA took free elections to mean the freedom
to bulldoze popular will, by emotionally charged rhetoric void of a clear
political plan in order to enable a handful of politicians wipe-out their
opponents and consolidate their grip on their clan and country. This is what
happened in Beirut; this is what happened in South Lebanon; and this is also
what was expected to happen in Mount-Lebanon where the political establishment
of BAHA tried to forego true elections by attempting to buy Aoun’s popularity
with a few parliamentary seats, maintaining otherwise the depressing status-quo.
When Aoun refused their deal, they maligned him and cast him out of their
coalition, turning him into an underdog, and boy do people love the underdog!

By their own mischief, the BAHA grossly misread the people’s
message of March 14, 2005 and overestimated their own popularity. The people who
took to the streets on March 14 did it for many reasons, many for personal ones,
but none of which was to give a blank political check to the Bristol group.

These reasons included:

1) To demand Syria’s full withdrawal from Lebanon

2) To express anger at and demand an international investigation
in the assassination of Hariri and friends

3) To respond to Hezbollah’s pro-Syrian rally of March 8, 2005,
and

4) Many of them to demand reform, democracy and a change of the
state of national affairs.

The BAHA mistook (intentionally or naively) the people’s
outpouring of emotions to mean a blind political endorsement of their undeclared
or non-existing agenda. And BAHA may have been right with 30% of the Beirutis [who
largely cast a vote of sympathy for the Hariris], 43% of the Southerners [many
of which voted by religious mandate (Taklif Sharii)], and a few percents in
the Shouf [who had no other choice]. They drove the electoral bulldozer
of their sham coalition through the voting districts of Beirut and the South
with no program or agenda, just a negative campaign against the decaying
“systems” of the current order (now largely dismantled), with emotionally
charged slogans, with misleading referenda and empty rhetoric and perhaps with
loud religious mandates from foreign Imams and silent whispers from newly
assigned masters… and they thought they could trample popular will everywhere
they wanted with no clear policy and no vision for the future.

How wrong they were when it came to Mount-Lebanon, to the people
who historically stood proud against invaders, to the people who truly fought
Syria’s occupation with blood, sweat and tears. These proud people were not
going to sideline the true “General of liberation” and simply delegate the
victory to the “Vichy coalition” of yesterday, the neo-opposition and the
pseudo-democrats… without a real fight. And by God, a real democratic fight they
gave them!

Byblos-Jbeil, the Phoenician city that gave the world its first
alphabet, the district that gave Lebanon Raymond Eddé, gave the Middle East its
first lesson in democracy: 62% voter participation to say NO to the gigantic and
grotesque bulldozer of BAHA, NO to referenda on the antiquated ruling
establishment and NO to the status-quo; but YES for democracy, YES for reform,
YES for new faces, YES for candidates with declared and clear programs and YES
for a new chapter in the history of Lebanon, based on true democratic
representation, a non-sectarian agenda and a civil society.

Will BAHA learn from that and change its ways? Perhaps not.

Perhaps BAHA sectarian leaders do not wish to learn, for fear
that the popular and democratic uprising that swept the establishment in Jbeil,
Keserwan and Metn spills over and sweeps BAHA’s leaders in the rest of Lebanon.

BAHA’s first reaction to the victory of democracy over the
bulldozer came from its leader Walid Jumblat who, unable to graciously accept
defeat, promptly shed the mask of “democrat” behind which he hided for sometime,
to reveal the true ugly and monstrous face of the Mountain’s butcher, the feudal
dictator who can never tolerate democracy and will stop at nothing to maintain
his leadership over his clan even if that meant a new war and the massacres of
innocent Lebanese (naturally, he specified his enemy as the democratic
Christians).

The true sectarian and hateful Walid Jumblat revealed himself
once again yesterday. Never in the history of modern democracies has a leader
described his loss in a popular vote as a call to a civil war. But those who
knew the man behind the mask were not surprised. Jumblat was faking it all the
time; he can never be a democrat. Tomorrow if called upon to explain his words
or apologize, Jumblat may retract his Freudian slip even before the ink dries on
it.

In reality, it may be better for his clan and for BAHA to retract
Jumblat altogether from politics: his political discourse, his flip-flops on
important national issues and his tone are outdated and no longer acceptable if
the Lebanese people wish to build together a new and modern democracy.

By contrast, Aoun’s appeal to the majority in Mount Lebanon, and
perhaps in Lebanon at large, stems from his firm principles, non-sectarian tone
and simple words; yes he was an extremist in attacking Syria when it occupied
Lebanon, and yes he was an extremist in demanding that the sovereignty of
Lebanon trumps all deals when Mr. Jumblat was fornicating with the occupation;
but throughout that, Aoun always communicated with the Lebanese people as a true
national leader, never presented himself as a Christian leader, let alone an
extremist Christian one, and never threatened to attack any Lebanese based on
sectarian policies. On the contrary he was fought against by a minority of
Christian extremists, the allies of Mr. Jumblat, nowadays. For all he stands
for, Aoun is seen by Jumblat as his nemesis; but it is Aoun not Jumblat that the
Lebanese people want and need in their leaders, and it is Aoun not Jumblat (the
uncontested deputy) the leader they democratically elected on June 12, 2005,
against all odds.

The challenge for Aoun now is to remain "Aoun", and not become
"Jumblat"; to remain principled and above the fray of sectarian politics, to
translate his victory into an outreach campaign to the majority of Lebanese,
disenchanted by the BAHA machine, to lift them up and push with them for secular
reforms in government and society: today as a minority in the opposition; but
tomorrow when the people across Lebanon have their fair chance to express
themselves, from a position of majority in parliament and at all levels of
government.

In a
democracy, when the people vote we bow to the people’s voice, we do not declare
war on them. This is the democratic way, the new Lebanese way. The other way,
Mr. Jumblat’s way, is the old Syrian way.

*Rabih Lubnan (RL) is a Lebanese
advocate of democracy and non-violent reform, and a contributor to the Don
Quixote section of the Democracy in Lebanon editorials.